An Indian man in prison for cracking 'offensive' jokes
bbc.com
bbc.com
Breaching the wall of freedom of speech will almost invariably lead to these kinds of prosecutions over time - people will eventually use speech laws to regulate political opponents even.
This is how we end up in a world where people think nothing of putting up Confederate monuments (for comparison, try putting up Nazi monuments in Europe on public land and see how far you get) and implementing policies like repatriation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-salute-...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/05/police-appea...
That's mad. People who commit ABH, hit-and-runs, deal class A drugs and such don't always get taken in to custody -- we regularly have reports (in our local news) of people convicted who commit further crimes because they're out on warrant/bail or only got a warning/fine -- making a bad joke that doesn't physically harm anyone isn't an offense that should lead to imprisonment. You tell them how insensitive it is, then you ignore them and leave them to wallow in their own excrement.
>A spokesperson for the campaign group Justice4Grenfell said the video had “caused great alarm and distress” //
Why did they watch it? They could probably say the same about Towering Inferno, or an episode of Game of Thrones or myriad other things. It's all getting ridiculous.
...really?????
It was all over the news. We have the BBC on one screen at work constantly. I saw the footage a few times the day after it happened completely inadvertendly. Not to mention it being all over social media and pretty much unavoidable.
"Just don't watch it" is an idiotic response.
For everyone else, get over it.
Presumably you'd like BBC management and your social media contacts to also be imprisoned? Isn't it inconsistent not to.
If just seeing this is an offense worthy of imprisonment then those on social media, and the BBC cause far more offense.
The first inkling I had that something was off, was a magazine article talking about rising religiosity in middle eastern countries.
That’s the first time the movie, where humanity pushed back religion and superstition, had tracking issues.
we saw that increasing wealth meant even bigger displays of religious dedication.
It turns out that a large part of the world has not had reason to go through their version of the enlightenment.
But while they were gaining the ability to improve GDP, the west was busy applying science to marketing, and business acumen to news reporting.
Effectively - we (humanity) used the tools of the enlightenment (science) to improve marketing, and apply it to religion. We targeted weaknesses in human thinking, and ruthlessly built bubbles of voters who didn’t need to fully understand the world to succeed.
My conclusion is that we were naive.
The evangelicals are alive and well.
Sooo, maybe? But I dont know if that point is well made.
I know it isn't in fashion to credit Christianity with anything, but what other philosophy of the era could have eventually ended slavery, given slavery is likely the state of man ever since Grog the caveman threatened his brother-son with a beating if he didn't fetch more water.
Hinduism, Christianity - all of them have the same pattern of behavior.
The religion part was just a handy excuse.
The fight for free speech is a neverending one because one side will always be in power. It's why the founders made it an inalienable right, not given to us by the government, but by "the creator".
Free speech isn't a privilege provided to us by the government. It is something we are born with.
Not true in America, certainly.
"Ironically, earlier this year, Mr Iyer-Mitra tweeted that a criminal case should be filed against American historian Audrey Truschke for allegedly abusing a Hindu god and "hurting sentiments".
"Bog her down in the legal system - can't leave on bail," he wrote. He has also tweeted about putting human rights activists and Communists in prison. One of his friends told me that most of his tweets were written in jest and "he now possibly regrets posting some of them".
When you call for jailing people based on opinions, well you never know when your opinion is the one out of favor with those with power.
This is the law text used [2]:
"Den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse eller sexuell läggning, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år eller om brottet är ringa, till böter.
Är brottet grovt döms till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst fyra år. Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas om meddelandet haft ett särskilt hotfullt eller kränkande innehåll och spritts till ett stort antal personer på ett sätt som varit ägnat att väcka betydande uppmärksamhet."
This translates to:
"Anyone who in speech or any other form of expression threatens or expresses contempt for a group of persons identified by race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation is sentenced for incitement against a group to prison for up to two years or if the crime is of a lesser degree, to a fine.
For serious crimes the sentence is imprisonment for at least six months and no more than four years. In assessing whether the offence is serious, particular attention should be paid to whether the message had a particularly threatening or infringing content and was spread to a large number of persons in a manner that was designed attract significant attention."
[1] https://nyheteridag.se/dan-park-efter-fangelsedomen-vansinne...
Ahhhhhh goes down smooth every time.
Here is one example, but you've probably seen this lots of times.
https://www.wmay.com/2018/10/02/cartoonist-says-hes-getting-...
The irony is the type of people doing this are probably also the types with bumper stickers praising the constitution.
It makes a massive difference!
If some random person tries to kill you and you blow their brains out in self defense the court will almost certainly back you up (assuming it's legitimate self defense). If random person someone tries to kill you and the police happen to be nearby they will probably intervene.
In contrast, if the state comes after you you're screwed. If you defend yourself you're even more screwed. You can't even call the cops.
I was just trying to point out how people don't really support freedom of speech when it comes to something that makes them angry - which is often the important stuff to be talking about.
> The top court judge said jail was the safest place for him if he feared for his life, a remark which rights group Amnesty International found "deeply worrying".
Defamation, for example, and discussions of religion, are especially dangerous grounds since what would be protected speech in the US (and generally non-controversial) is not protected in India and could even lead to riots, lynching, etc.
To be more blunt: in India, people can and have been imprisoned for saying negative things about other religions, and those punishments were upheld by the courts.
In America, people might get jailed at the local level in certain parts of the country by an overzealous sheriff if they badmouth Christianity. And then they get released within a few hours, or a few days tops. And then they sue and receive a settlement in the millions of dollars to compensate them for the violation of their civil rights.
So really, not at all similar.
You understood that from the beginning but it rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Let me guess, you think that offensive speech shouldn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment? That would be a real shocker.
I find it hard to believe there were days where you could be killed if you did not acknowledge supreme authority of a Catholic pope or some other monarch figure. People refused to do that on the bounds that God only is supreme. They could have "lied" and kept their life. But they choose to be jailed and beheaded for their belief. And right now in America, we have half of the population that sits somewhere on the "right wing" spectrum that refuses to speak on the grounds that what they say might go against an ideology on the left. I wonder how this will turn out. When will men become men again? I feel like I should lead the way, but I'd rather sit here in front of a computer...